Why acapella?

[Reformedfellow]

Joshua,
I did listen to the first of the two you suggested. Didn't tackle the week's worth mountain though.
I am persuaded towards the regulations of public worship. But not as far as the view stretches to the private listening to spiritual songs, worship music and Hymns put to music.
If something "sounds like worship" then "no good", but if it's just a "reflection, then "pass". It's too fine a line and a confusing one to boot.
Music is NOT an idol to me. I guess you'll have to trust me on this one. Music and Punk Rock was my entire life since I was 6 years old, until I was 33. It's all I ever did, or wanted to do, thought about, cared about. When God opened my eyes and saved me, I immediately felt no affinity or connection to music, any music, at all. Over 800 CD's in the trash. (Out of my own desire, not the persuasion of anyone) Quite the contrary, I had every Church in town try to poach me "you gotta join the band, you gotta join the band"!
I never even touched my guitar for a year, LITERALLY, after my conversion and had NO desires to play. And I still don't. So I'm not hung up on something that I just refuse to let go of because I get my religious jollies or ears tickled from it.
I have learned a lot from listening to hymns, pointed to scripture, and God has used this MUSIC powerfully in my life both in sanctification, and in separation (from the world).
I admit, there is a lot of Christian music out there that is pretty corny. The hillsong style irreverent goofiness, or SUPER-superficial watery drab that couldn't edify anyone at 80-decibels.
But to label ALL OF Christian music ALL in the same category just on account of there is instruments being played, or it's "too worshipful" for private edification, I feel is truly wasteful. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, if you will.
I dunno. You got me half-way. I guess we'll leave it at that.

---------- Post added at 12:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 PM ----------

Quote Originally Posted by Reformedfellow View Post
I am REALLY having a hard time with this viewpoint.
I think the problem is stemming from the fact that we in our English world speak of "worship" in a variety of contexts and with different meanings. If we tied the word down to the concepts inherent in the Hebrew and Greek languages we would see that, strictly speaking, worship is only ever performed in the courts of God's own house, and therefore restricted to what we call corporate worship. Everything else is an extension and extenuation of this concept. Strictly speaking, therefore, worship refers only to that which takes place "when you come together," to borrow an expression of the apostle Paul. In that setting, we are limited by God's revealed will. Those in authority in the church only have power to teach people to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded. To borrow another expression of the apostle Paul, the church is to observe the ordinances as they have been delivered. Where there is no prescription from God's word for any act of worship that action has no warrant in the public worship of God.

Rev. Winzer,
Thankyou for your response. The thing I am having trouble with is not the use of music in public worship. I have understood the position and am in contemplation. The struggle is with not using music at all.

 

[rbcbob]

t meanings. If we tied the word down to the concepts inherent in the Hebrew and Greek languages we would see that, strictly speaking, worship is only ever performed in the courts of God's own house, and therefore restricted to what we call corporate worship. Everything else is an extension and extenuation of this concept. Strictly speaking, therefore, worship refers only to that which takes place "when you come together," to borrow an expression of the apostle Paul

Agreed. I call this the principle of ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ “in church” meaning that the apostle regulates what the local flock may and may not do when they are gathered “as the church” for worship. (see 1 Cor. 11:18; 14:19; 14:28; 14:35)

To illustrate, a church of 14 members might find themselves coincidently, or for that matter purposefully, at the park at the same time. Although the totality of the congregation is present they are not proscribed from singing a contemporary Christian song with full instrumental accompaniment because this gathering is not ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ.

Now if those same 14 people gathered at the parks community building on the Lord’s day with the purpose of worshipping God, then the principle of ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ is in force and regulates that service.

 

[Reformedfellow]

Few (if any) are saying what you've said, though. My fear is that I, or someone else, haven't apparently been clear enough.

Joshua, I am referring to comment #26 & #32 respectively. These suggest the disapproval of music on account of being "worshipful" (#32) to not "Christianizing" ANY music (#26, viewpoint 2)

Perhaps I still don't get it.
But I still see nothing wrong with wanting to worship God in a private setting. If I wanna sit in my room and stretch out my hands to God and worship Him, can I not do that? Yes, I can! ....but only if the song "Here I am to worship" is not playing in the background? (comment #32)

or Can I not enjoy a hymn on the cd player set to an organ and not feel like it's only "half acceptable" to God because there's an organ in it? (comment #26, #23)

 

[Afterthought]

I think the problem is stemming from the fact that we in our English world speak of "worship" in a variety of contexts and with different meanings. If we tied the word down to the concepts inherent in the Hebrew and Greek languages we would see that, strictly speaking, worship is only ever performed in the courts of God's own house, and therefore restricted to what we call corporate worship. Everything else is an extension and extenuation of this concept. Strictly speaking, therefore, worship refers only to that which takes place "when you come together," to borrow an expression of the apostle Paul. In that setting, we are limited by God's revealed will. Those in authority in the church only have power to teach people to observe whatsoever Christ has commanded. To borrow another expression of the apostle Paul, the church is to observe the ordinances as they have been delivered. Where there is no prescription from God's word for any act of worship that action has no warrant in the public worship of God.

That's something I've been wondering about. If the principle of worship is tied to the second commandment, how can it only apply to public worship? Is the difference merely that in public worship, we are required to do all commanded, while in private worship, we are not required to do all but are still forbidden to do what is not commanded? (Hopefully I'm not muddying things further by asking this here?)

 

[Dearly Bought]

Few (if any) are saying what you've said, though. My fear is that I, or someone else, haven't apparently been clear enough.

Joshua, I am referring to comment #26 & #32 respectively. These suggest the disapproval of music on account of being "worshipful" (#32) to not "Christianizing" ANY music (#26, viewpoint 2)

Perhaps I still don't get it.
But I still see nothing wrong with wanting to worship God in a private setting. If I wanna sit in my room and stretch out my hands to God and worship Him, can I not do that? Yes, I can! ....but only if the song "Here I am to worship" is not playing in the background? (comment #32)

or Can I not enjoy a hymn on the cd player set to an organ and not feel like it's only "half acceptable" to God because there's an organ in it? (comment #26, #23)

I would note that it's not merely a "worshipful" attitude which I rejected, but rather uninspired music explicitly intended to be religious worship. I don't have an extended list of what might or might not be proper, but I think "Here I Am to Worship" qualifies as a fairly blatant example of the sort of thing that we might reject. This uninspired song explicitly asserts that the intention is that it be used as a form of religious worship, therefore it is not proper matter for recreation/meditation if one holds to exclusive psalmody.

 

[JP Wallace]

suggesting singing to God with the AID of a musical instrument (organ or guitar or otherwise) leaves the church open to re-implement sacrifices is a bit of a silly stretch.

I'm not saying it leaves the church open to that, but that the principle that permits re-introduction of instruments leaves the church in a weak position to resist the re-introduction of any element.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

We would do well to remember that when we worship the Lord we offer Him "service". This is why we call it a worship "service". As service then, such "services" must be according to what He has required of us. There are many other things we do in our daily lives, which are lawful, which glorify God, that are not explicitly service to Him in the way that a worship service is. If we enjoy classical music, we are free to enjoy it. Let us not take what we enjoy however, and offer it to the Lord as "service" to Him. As far as the use of musical instruments is concerned, the Lord has not required them of us in the NT, because they were that which accompanied the bloody sacrifices of the OT, part of the Temple Service, which is now passed away, being fulfilled in Christ--so we don't have Levitical orchestras, etc. in our worship services. That is the position of the a-cappella exclusive Psalmodist. However, if we enjoy playing piano or guitar, and if that enjoyments extends to excellence, certainly we can do it "to the glory of God" but not as service to Him in His worship--that is regulated by His commands for worship as we offer service to Him. For instance, in the OT, a worshipper was required to bring an animal sacrifice to the Lord at certain set times, and that animal was to be of a certain kind, without obvious blemish, prepared a certain way, with salt, etc. However, the worshipper was also permitted, if he had the means, to eat meat as a meal, and when he did, he could prepare that meal almost any way he desired (within OT dietary stipulations) for his own enjoyment. Note in one he is "serving" the Lord, and in the other his own enjoyment informs much of his actions. Hope that helps.

 

[JML]

Joshua, I am referring to comment #26 & #32 respectively. These suggest the disapproval of music on account of being "worshipful" (#32) to not "Christianizing" ANY music (#26, viewpoint 2)

2) Those who believe that the regulation for acapella exclusive psalmody is limited to the worship service and therefore hymns or contemporary songs with instruments would be acceptable during times that are not worship services, such as listening to music in the car or at home.

I was unaware that I caused any confusion in my post. Can you be more specific on where I said in post #26 that I was against "Christianizing ANY music." That way I can help in answering your question. I don't see anything in point #2 that says that. I pasted point #2 from my post above. Point #2 is just saying that when we are present at a worship service or corporate worship if you like, then we must abide by the Regulative Principle of Worship. When I am in my car, it is not corporate worship or a worship service and I am free to listen to instruments, etc. (even "Christian" music).

In regards to music being "worshipful" as you stated, my personal issue is with songs where you can clearly tell the song was written or intended for corporate worship, such as Bryan's example of "Here I am to Worship." I don't believe in uninspired, man-made songs with instruments in corporate worship. Therefore, when a song speaks of "corporate worship" and includes this in it, I am opposed to that song because it is teaching a doctrine in which I do not agree. I would be opposed to other Christian music that taught any number of doctrines that I am in disagreement with. Hopefully, this helps to explain what Bryan and I are saying.

Can I not enjoy a hymn on the cd player set to an organ and not feel like it's only "half acceptable" to God because there's an organ in it? (comment #26, #23)

What do you mean by "it is only half acceptable to God?" Do you mean you are "offering the song in worship to God" or "God only half approves of you listening to it." Please explain in more detail.

If it is the first, there is then is big difference in what I am saying and what you are saying. When I listen to music, even Christian music, my mindset is not that I am seeking God's acceptance of my offering of the song. I am not offering anything to God as worship when I am listening to the song. I am just listening to a song and enjoying the music or perhaps even enjoying the lyrics. Even if the lyrics are somewhat edifying, I don't see that as an offering to God that must be accepted or rejected. Therefore, why can you not "enjoy a hymn on the cd player set to an organ?" If you are referring to point #1 in post #26, that is a viewpoint held by some but is not held by me. So, someone who holds that viewpoint would have to explain why they believe it.

If you are referring to the second (God only half approving of what you are doing), what I and others have argued is that instrumentation is acceptable in contexts that are not corporate worship or worship services. So, if you are listening to hymns with instruments at home, why would that be something that God disapproves of?

Hopefully, this clears up some confusion. Let me know if you have any more questions.

 

[peter_piper]

Wow...so that generated tons of responses, haha.
Thanks so much for that. I wasn't aware that the acapella was in response to the distinctiveness between the Old Covenant and the New covenant. I'm going to read the rest of these posts.
One question I have though...it might be answered in the thread and if so...I will re-edit this post...but in what passage(s) are instruments appointed for the public worship?
Furthermore, I understand that the ceremonial laws have passed on..as they are fufilled in Christ (day of atonement, sacrifice, temple, etc) but how/why are musical laws (if any) fulfilled in Christ so as to explain why we don't do that anymore.
Is it because as was mentioned in #43, they were part of the ceremonial service? How are they fulfilled in Christ?
I appreciate all the feedback. Very informative thanks! Here's another question (just for fun) sure to stir the pot as well . What are some of your views in regards to body movements during singing? For instance, clapping, raising hands, swaying or dancing perhaps. I personally don't do them...probably because I just feel uncomfortable and no one in my church really does, but personally feel that clapping or swaying is okay as long as its not disruptive and stuff. I also feel like it would be okay to fall prostrate before God during a worship service as well, there are examples in Scripture of people doing this before God in worship as well. Any thoughts?

P.S. Yes Tim, I am quite acquainted with the Free Church

 

[JML]

One question I have though...it might be answered in the thread and if so...I will re-edit this post...but in what passage(s) are instruments appointed and stuff for the public worship?
Furthermore, I understand that the ceremonial laws have passed on..as they are fufilled in Christ (day of atonement, sacrifice, temple, etc) but how/why are musical laws (if any) fulfilled in Christ so as to explain why we don't do that anymore.

This article may help answer your questions:

Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God

 

[fredtgreco]

Peter, the principle by which musical instruments are not used in worship is that they are considered an element of worship (central to the OT sacrificial system) and thus done away with in the NT, because there is no warrant for (Divine command) them. Instruments are seen as the equivalent of reading Scripture, prayer, and the sacraments (which are each elements). If one takes that view (that instrumental music is an element), it is Biblically correct and proper not to have them in NT worship. This is just as if someone would introduce drama or dance (as unauthorized elements) into worship.

I believe that instrumental music is an circumstance (more akin to light, to aid reading) than an element. Thus, while I subscribe to the Regulative Principle of Worship, and agree in principle with the first half of the linked article, I can in good conscience have instruments in worship.

The important distinction here is the distinguishing of element and circumstance. The linked article's comments about who invented music, personal pleasure, and victory celebrations are foolish nonsense, in my opinion. If instrumental music is bad because of these things, it is bad per se. The Lord should not have used it ever in worship then. I do not believe that my acapella exclusive Psalmody brethren believe this. I mention it because I find Schwertly to often be overblown in his writing, and to conflate issues. There are far better (in my opinion) defenses of the acapella position than his.

 

[peter_piper]

This article may help answer your questions:

Musical Instruments in the Public Worship of God

Thanks for the article John...That's a doozie of a lengthy one though (Searched amazon and they had no coles notes unfortunately ). Won't have time over lunch to read that, but I'll look at it later on perhaps. Also, thank you Fred for that clarification. I am learning alot on this thread...my mind is somewhat going into overload, but as I stand now, I feel more inclined to your view, in that instruments serve as aids...(I know I need them as my sense of pitch is often brutal! haha). I also feel that the EP holds stronger merit when applied to public worship than when talking about private edification etc. In the same way reading non-Scripture is fine in private, but I wouldn't want my pastor preaching out of Pilgrims Progress or the latest book by Sproul.
Cheers,
Peter

 

[JP Wallace]

One question I have though...it might be answered in the thread and if so...I will re-edit this post...but in what passage(s) are instruments appointed and stuff for the public worship?

Firstly here where David as prophet of the Lord appoints musicians and specific instruments etc.

1 Chronicles 15:16 16 Then David spoke to the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brethren to be the singers accompanied by instruments of music, stringed instruments, harps, and cymbals, by raising the voice with resounding joy.

emphasised here:

1 Chronicles 16:41-42 41 and with them Heman and Jeduthun and the rest who were chosen, who were designated by name, to give thanks to the LORD, because His mercy endures forever; 42 and with them Heman and Jeduthun, to sound aloud with trumpets and cymbals and the musical instruments of God. Now the sons of Jeduthun were gatekeepers.

1 Chronicles 23:4-5 4 Of these, twenty-four thousand were to look after the work of the house of the LORD, six thousand were officers and judges, 5 four thousand were gatekeepers, and four thousand praised the LORD with musical instruments, "which I made," said David, "for giving praise."

1 Chronicles 25:1 NKJ 1 Chronicles 25:1 Moreover David and the captains of the army separated for the service some of the sons of Asaph, of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, stringed instruments, and cymbals. And the number of the skilled men performing their service was:

And then interestingly instrumentation is strictly restricted in Hezekiah's day to the same instruments (and doubly interesting Psalm 150 speaks of instruments possibly/probably not permitted even in OC worship thus pointing to an extra-public worship interpretation.)


2 Chronicles 29:25 And he stationed the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with stringed instruments, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, of Gad the king’s seer, and of Nathan the prophet; for thus was the commandment of the Lord by His prophets. 26 The Levites stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with the trumpets. 27 Then Hezekiah commanded them to offer the burnt offering on the altar. And when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord also began, with the trumpets and with the instruments of David king of Israel. 28 So all the assembly worshiped, the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded; all this continued until the burnt offering was finished. 29 And when they had finished offering, the king and all who were present with him bowed and worshiped. 30 Moreover King Hezekiah and the leaders commanded the Levites to sing praise to the Lord with the words of David and of Asaph the seer. So they sang praises with gladness, and they bowed their heads and worshiped.

You would think the Chronicler thought it was important that they only did what God has specifically told them to do in worship?

 

[JML]

I mention it because I find Schwertly to often be overblown in his writing, and to conflate issues. There are far better (in my opinion) defenses of the acapella position than his.

It was just shorter than reading a full blown book and covered some of the issues he had brought up. I believe Schwertley can be overly harsh at times and says some things that I personally would not say. So...here is another option.

Old Light on New Worship

---------- Post added at 11:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

Thanks for the article John...That's a doozie of a lengthy one though (Searched amazon and they had no coles notes unfortunately ). Won't have time over lunch to read that, but I'll look at it later on perhaps.
Cheers,
Peter

If you do read it, read it in light of what Fred was saying as well. Sometimes, Schwertley can be unnecessarily harsh in my opinion but if you know this going in, I still think he makes good points. John Price's book is a little more kind.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Girardeau is a better author and also online, but also not short. I had a PDF version I did but it seems to be gone now. Several versions are online. See an html version here:
Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church.

 

[Peairtach]

Some of us don't view musical instruments and hymns in New Testament worship in the same category as sacrificing sheep or goats in the New Testament, otherwise we would never sing any hymn or listen to, e.g., Handel's Messiah, and would cut off fraternal relations with churches that have hymns and music in their services, but because hymns and musical instruments don't have a command, we believe the biblical position is to leave them in an informal area of worship which is somewhere between formal, regulated worship and everyday life.

This is what the Apostle Paul did respecting the informal worship of the agape feast.

And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come.(I Cor 11:34)

 

[J. Dean]

But isn't the denouncement of instruments blurring the line between the descriptive and the prescriptive? That's my whole issue with the "acapella or bust" argument is that it seems to be reading an imperative into something that's an indicative.

To be frank, and not to get too far off topic, I could easily use the "Levitical use of instrument" argument on the Sabbath as well, since nowhere in the epistles are Christians commanded to keep Sabbath. That there is silence on an issue does not mean such a thing is forbidden, and if you're going to argue from silence on one matter, then you open up the same basis for other matters.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Dear Pastor Greco,

I believe there's a typo in your post. I believe you meant to say that you believe that instrumental music is a circumstance, like lighting as an aid to reading, etc.

This is a common view among many today, and although it is not my view, I do understand how my brothers form their argument. For a lengthy but good discussion on that topic from the point of view of the a-capella advocate, the work referenced by Girardeau has a good section discussing musical instruments and whether or not they should be considered elements or circumstances.

Peter, the principle by which musical instruments are not used in worship is that they are considered an element of worship (central to the OT sacrificial system) and thus done away with in the NT, because there is no warrant for (Divine command) them. Instruments are seen as the equivalent of reading Scripture, prayer, and the sacraments (which are each elements). If one takes that view (that instrumental music is an element), it is Biblically correct and proper not to have them in NT worship. This is just as if someone would introduce drama or dance (as unauthorized elements) into worship.

I believe that instrumental music is an element (more akin to light, to aid reading) than an element. Thus, while I subscribe to the Regulative Principle of Worship, and agree in principle with the first half of the linked article, I can in good conscience have instruments in worship.

The important distinction here is the distinguishing of element and circumstance. The linked article's comments about who invented music, personal pleasure, and victory celebrations are foolish nonsense, in my opinion. If instrumental music is bad because of these things, it is bad per se. The Lord should not have used it ever in worship then. I do not believe that my acapella exclusive Psalmody brethren believe this. I mention it because I find Schwertly to often be overblown in his writing, and to conflate issues. There are far better (in my opinion) defenses of the acapella position than his.

 

[MLCOPE2]

since nowhere in the epistles are Christians commanded to keep Sabbath.

Hebrews 4:9 - "So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God,"

 

[fredtgreco]

Yes, thanks, Pastor Ruddell.

 

[au5t1n]

But isn't the denouncement of instruments blurring the line between the descriptive and the prescriptive? That's my whole issue with the "acapella or bust" argument is that it seems to be reading an imperative into something that's an indicative.

To be frank, and not to get too far off topic, I could easily use the "Levitical use of instrument" argument on the Sabbath as well, since nowhere in the epistles are Christians commanded to keep Sabbath. That there is silence on an issue does not mean such a thing is forbidden, and if you're going to argue from silence on one matter, then you open up the same basis for other matters.

You are speaking as if a capella is a thing when it really is a lack of a thing. So we are talking not about an indicative of a capella but a lack of an indicative of instruments. The nature of the RPW is that the lack of direct precept, approved example, or necessary inference for a part of worship constitutes a prohibition.

The instruments-as-circumstances argument is better and is one of the reasons we are inclined to extend charity to Reformed churches that make an honest effort to use instruments circumstantially. I personally think it is not possible for a church to accomplish this successfully and with widespread understanding in the congregation. I think it would be an illuminating exercise to poll the membership of Reformed churches with elders who believe in instruments-as-circumstances and see whether they think the piano is merely an aid to singing or if it is part of the worship itself. Then there is also the question of whether it is wise to use circumstantially in the NT something that was used elementally in the OT, especially when it is not remotely necessary. But as an a capella guy, I do appreciate honest efforts among Reformed churches to use instruments circumstantially.

 

[Dearly Bought]

The instruments-as-circumstances argument is better and is one of the reasons we are inclined to extend charity to Reformed churches that make an honest effort to use instruments circumstantially. I personally think it is not possible for a church to accomplish this successfully and with widespread understanding in the congregation. I think it would be an illuminating exercise to poll the membership of Reformed churches with elders who believe in instruments-as-circumstances and see whether they think the piano is merely an aid to singing or if it is part of the worship itself. Then there is also the question of whether it is wise to use circumstantially in the NT something that was used elementally in the OT, especially when it is not remotely necessary. But as an a capella guy, I do appreciate honest efforts among Reformed churches to use instruments circumstantially.

I feel that the instruments-as-circumstances argument is the argument that anyone who claims to hold to the RPW and yet endorses instrumental accompaniment must make if they're attempting to be consistent. I do, however, like to push my brethren who make this argument. If instrumental accompaniment is truly a circumstance aiding singing, why does almost every Reformed congregation that uses instruments that I've worshipped with always include prelude, offertory, and postlude music in their services?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

always include prelude, offertory, and postlude music in their services?

I call it mood music. I see nothing circumstantial in it. It is especially distracting during the Lord's supper.

 

[Kevin]

Re the OP, Tradition.

 

[JML]

Re the OP, Tradition.

Actually, I am ok with that answer.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

 

[Moireach]

One final question, sorry. This one just came to me;

So no one with this position listens to any music?

If you take this to it's logical conclusion; instruments are evil.
Let's back up. We would all agree that anything (music or otherwise) made or done not to the glory of God is vanity.
For example, for the sake of our context, the world's music.
But then you are still saying that music made to the glory of God (worship music, hymns) using singing melodies, the moment the use of instruments is implemented it is automatically disqualified. It is violating scripture, thus sinful, and is rejected by God.
That's quite a bold claim to make.

In fact you don't have to imagine, there are churches all over the place who believe they have that authority and the consequences are there to be seen.

"Consequences"? Brother, there are dear saints, people who love God, who show that love and express their gratitude and joy towards God by using their talents by making music to the glory of God and the edification of many saints. Using your position to say that their worship is rejected by God is, in my opinion, dangerously unwise.

ALL OF OUR worship is a stench to God without Christ. All of our efforts are sin-stained, instruments or a capella. It is Christ who enables us to come to God. Not because of an instrument, and not because we don't have an instrument.
I must contest that a brother, blood bought, with the living Spirit of Christ within his regenerate and PURE HEART, who comes to God in praise is NOT rejected on account that he does so because he does it while playing a piano.

While I admire and applaud your desire to worship God with a pure heart, and duly respect your conviction to do so A Capella, I would never suggest to you that your offerings to God were rejected by Him.

You have completely mis-read or misunderstood my comment sir. I certainly hope you have. My comment alluded to the consequences of adopting the Normative Principle. I am sure, and sincerely hope, that you would share my views on this at the very least. This is the very foundation on which a discussion on this topic can even begin. All the Confessions represented on this board hold to the Regulative Principle, so presumably you hold to it yourself.

 

[Reformedfellow]

John Lanier, David Murray.
Thanks for your further comments. I'm not avoiding you guys, honestly my pc died. I got the "Mac death" sign on my MacBook. (this is a blank screen with a big question mark in the middle) I'm only iPhone here, can't quote a comment or navigate very easy. So I'll be brief for now.
John, previously there were comments that alluded to the position that God rejects worship that is accompanied by music. Whether I quoted the right ones or not, sorry it is difficult to navigate. But this was/and is still a big part of my problem with this position.

David,
I did review your initial comment. Yes, I'm sorry I mistook your comment as alluding specifically to worship with instruments. Although I'm sure it includes it, as that is the topic of the post.
Your comment also eludes to the fact that singing is mentioned many times in the new testament. You are right, Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. (Ephesians, Colossians, I can remember specifically right now) ..but Psalms only? A cappella ONLY? I see nowhere in the NT that condemns or prohibits the use of hymns, or the use of an instrument. I see no warnings nor instructions regarding this issue. I will have to side with J Dean on this one. I'm wary about building a doctrine on worship (or anything else) around what the bible DOES NOT say.

I see where you guys are coming from. And I get it. I've heard your arguments, and listened to the sermons. I don't think the exclusive Psalms and exclusive a cappella is wrong or anything to condemn. I respect you absolutely, to the point I am almost convinced. But there is too many holes in it, in my opinion.
I'm sorry if that offends you. But I really hope it doesn't.

Sorry I can't respond so often, or at more length till I get my pc troubles sorted out.

By the way David, where exactly are you in Scotland? I have toured the UK a few times, and was able to catch a little sight seeing in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, and Aberdeen.
Beautiful country! Don't miss the black-pudding though

 

[Moireach]

Moireach

John Lanier, David Murray.
Thanks for your further comments. I'm not avoiding you guys, honestly my pc died. I got the "Mac death" sign on my MacBook. (this is a blank screen with a big question mark in the middle) I'm only iPhone here, can't quote a comment or navigate very easy. So I'll be brief for now.
John, previously there were comments that alluded to the position that God rejects worship that is accompanied by music. Whether I quoted the right ones or not, sorry it is difficult to navigate. But this was/and is still a big part of my problem with this position.

David,
I did review your initial comment. Yes, I'm sorry I mistook your comment as alluding specifically to worship with instruments. Although I'm sure it includes it, as that is the topic of the post.
Your comment also eludes to the fact that singing is mentioned many times in the new testament. You are right, Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. (Ephesians, Colossians, I can remember specifically right now) ..but Psalms only? A cappella ONLY? I see nowhere in the NT that condemns or prohibits the use of hymns, or the use of an instrument. I see no warnings nor instructions regarding this issue. I will have to side with J Dean on this one. I'm wary about building a doctrine on worship (or anything else) around what the bible DOES NOT say.

I see where you guys are coming from. And I get it. I've heard your arguments, and listened to the sermons. I don't think the exclusive Psalms and exclusive a cappella is wrong or anything to condemn. I respect you absolutely, to the point I am almost convinced. But there is too many holes in it, in my opinion.
I'm sorry if that offends you. But I really hope it doesn't.

Sorry I can't respond so often, or at more length till I get my pc troubles sorted out.

By the way David, where exactly are you in Scotland? I have toured the UK a few times, and was able to catch a little sight seeing in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fife, and Aberdeen.
Beautiful country! Don't miss the black-pudding though

The discussion on why one who would believe a Capella was scriptural in worship certainly led me to refer to the Regulative Principle, and the consequences of not holding to it, but those consequences were not specifically aimed at instrumental accompaniment at all. Far from it. In fact the consequences are not necessarily obvious with mild musical accompaniment alone, quite the contrary to many people.

But see, once again your reasoning is that of one who holds to the Normative Principle. Our worship is not regulated around what the Bible does not say. It is regulated around what it does say. A reformed discussion on Church worship must examine what God commands his church to do. In terms of the elements of worship, if it is not commanded it is prohibited. (remember do not mix that up with circumstances of worship such as where you worship and what colour your carpet is).

I am from the Western Isles, but study in Glasgow. It certainly is, you should visit some islands next time, we definitely have some of the most unspoiled beaches in the world. The Western Isles is the capital of black puddings and I love them

 

[JP Wallace]

I see nowhere in the NT that condemns or prohibits the use of hymns, or the use of an instrument.

The Regulative Principle of the reformed confessions clearly states that it is not what is not condemned that sets the agenda for worship, but what is actually positively warranted. Thus whether we see something condemned is irrelevant to the discussion. You argument is pre-reformation, Anglican principle of worship. There are thousands of things not condemned in relation to incorporation in public worship are you saying we are free to do them? E.g. the NT does not condemn drama, nor does it condemn candles, nor does it condemn the use of graphical art, mime or any number of other things. Are we free to do them? If not what argument are you going to use? The only logical and consistent one is the Regulative Principle of Worship.

Now there are representatives on this board who believe that instrumental accompaniment is circumstantial (for which no positive warrant is needed) and there are those who believe it was elemental in OT and clearly not elemental (requiring positive warrant) in the NT - both are making their decisions on the basis of the RPW. Both are wrestling to understand it and neither would argue that they can do or not do something based on the silence of the text.

Furthermore your present position is inconsistent, indeed antithetical to your stated position, because later you say,

"I'm wary about building a doctrine on worship (or anything else) around what the bible DOES NOT say. "

Actually in the previous quotation that is exactly what you are doing. You say saying the Church should or may use instruments because the Scriptures say nothing about them. You are saying because the Scripture does not prohibit them you will use them.

 

[Reformedfellow]

David,
You said something like; where it is not commanded, it is prohibited. I understand your point. Thankyou.
Pastor Wallace, you have misunderstood my point it seems. I have not, nor attempt to, build a doctrine around my opinion of using instruments for worship. This is what I meant. The NT is not specific on so I'm not going to say one is right, the other is wrong.
Our brother David made just a point (stated above) which got my attention though, and makes the most sense to me out of any argument I've heard so far.
I haven't completely rejected the A Cappella case. There are still things that seem unclear to me, but it's growing on me However, in the instance of Psalms ONLY; the Apostle mentions, at least twice (in Ephesians and Colossians) to use Psalms, Hymns, and spiritual songs. Not Psalms ONLY. This is where the bible is not "silent".

---------- Post added at 12:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

Again, sorry fellas if I'm hard to understand here or am too brief. I'm "typing" (tapping) on a screen here smaller than my hand.